European Union (Withdrawal) Act

Debate between Bernard Jenkin and Jim Fitzpatrick

Friday 11th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

No, I am not giving way; the hon. Gentleman spoke for a long time. But I will say this: like him, I believe in the sovereignty of the people, and in fact I believe in the sovereignty of the Scottish people, and the Scottish people spoke in 2014 and voted to be part of the United Kingdom. And then the Scottish people, as the British people, took part in the 2016 United Kingdom referendum and the British people spoke, and I believe in their sovereign right to be respected.

So I will rise to the hon. Gentleman’s challenge and say that the benefits the Scottish people are getting from leaving the EU are that they are taking control of their own laws and money, and—something dear to his heart, I imagine—that the Scottish Parliament is going to have more power as a result of us leaving the EU. He seems to be very quiet about that.

In the emergency debate on Tuesday 11 December I emphasised the democratic legitimacy of the referendum vote. The Commons voted to give the decision to remain or leave to the voters by 544 votes to 53, and then we accepted that decision and invoked article 50 by 494 votes to 122.

Nobody could possibly question the courteous determination and sincerity of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who has striven so hard to secure an agreement acceptable to this House from our EU partners, but it now looks most unlikely that this draft agreement will be approved, because it would leave the UK in a less certain and more invidious position than we are prepared to accept.

Nevertheless, the EU withdrawal Act, which sets the exit date as 29 March 2019, did pass this House. It could have included an amendment that the Act should not come into force without an article 50 withdrawal agreement, but we approved that Act, which provides for leaving the EU without a withdrawal agreement—I think even my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex voted for that Act. Parliament has now spoken. The Act makes provision for the so-called “meaningful vote”, but not for any kind of vote in this House to prevent Brexit without a withdrawal agreement. Democracy has been served.

For some MPs now to complain that they did not intend to vote for what the Act provides for is rather lame. They may have held a different hope or expectation, but the Government gave no grounds for that. The Government always said, and still say, that no deal is better than a bad deal. Parliament has approved the law and set the date. There is no democratic case for changing it, nor could that be in the national interest.

The right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) reminded us of some of the less pleasant elements on the spectrum of British politics, but elsewhere in the EU, extremism is becoming far more entrenched than here, with AFD in Germany and the gilets jaunes on the streets of Paris, as well as Lega Nord, which has actually taken power in Italy. Popular revolt against the immovability of the established EU consensus in the rest of the EU cannot be blamed on Brexit. On the contrary, our broad and largely two-party democracy has proved to be the most durable and resistant to extremism because we absorb and reflect the effects of political and economic shocks. UKIP died at the 2017 general election because both the main parties pledged to implement the referendum decision without qualification.

But what are some in this House trying to achieve now? What would be the consequences for the stability and security of our democracy if the Government let the politicians turn on the majority of their own voters and say, “The politicians are taking back control, not for Parliament but to keep the EU in control”? The voters did not vote to accept whatever deal the EU was prepared to offer. They voted to leave, whether or not the EU gave us permission. Ruling out leaving without a withdrawal agreement is not a democratic option. They did not vote to remain as the only alternative to a bad deal, they did not vote for the EU to hold the UK hostage, nor did they vote for a second referendum.

Of course, a second referendum is what the EU really wants, which is why it will not give the UK a good deal. It is shameful that so many leading political figures from our country have been shipping themselves over to Brussels to tell the EU not to make concessions in the negotiations with their own Government, in order to try to get a second referendum. The EU is a profoundly undemocratic and unaccountable institution, whose biggest project, the euro, has inflicted far worse disaster on businesses, individuals and families in many countries than even the direst Treasury forecasts for the UK. The economic and political storm clouds are still just gathering over the EU. It is the EU that is on the cliff edge of disaster, not the UK. In the years to come, in the words of Mervyn King, the former Governor of the Bank of England:

“If you give people a chart of British GDP and ask them to point to where we left the EU, they won’t be able to see it.”

Our domestic policies, as well as our trade with the rest of the world, have already become far more important than our present trading relationship with the EU. We will have the freedom to develop them more quickly. Our EU membership does not just cost the net contribution of £10 billion per year and rising, which does no more than avoid some £5.3 billion of tariffs, but it has locked the UK into an EU trading advantage, leaving the UK with an EU trade deficit of £90 billion a year. Why are we trying to preserve such a disadvantageous trading relationship?

Even if we leave without a withdrawal agreement, there will be immediate benefits. WTO is a safer haven than the backstop. Far from crashing out, we would be cashing in. We would keep £39 billion, which would immediately improve our balance of payments and could be invested in public services, distributed in tax cuts or used to speed up economic adaptation. That would boost GDP by 2% over the next few years. We would end uncertainty; the draft agreement would perpetuate it.

Business needs clarity about trading conditions with the EU from day one. Jamie Dimon of J. P. Morgan campaigned for remain, side by side with George Osborne, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer. J. P. Morgan now says that extending article 50 is the “worst case scenario” because it does

“not see what it provides us in reaching a clear, final outcome that provides certainty for businesses”.

It adds that paralysis is

“not good for the economy”,

yet that is what the article 50 extenders are arguing for. We will not be caught in any backstop if we leave without a withdrawal agreement, nor will there be a hard border in Ireland. Even Leo Varadkar has said that

“under no circumstances will there be a border. Full stop.”

The EU and the UK Government have said the same.

All of the more ludicrous scare stories are being disproved. There will be no queues at Dover or Calais. The president of Port Boulogne Calais could not have been more emphatic—[Laughter.] Labour Members laugh, because they do not want to hear the truth. The president of Port Boulogne Calais said:

“We have been preparing for No Deal for a year....We will be ready....We will not check trucks more than we are doing today...We will not stop and ask more than we are doing today”.

He added that the new special area for sanitary and phytosanitary checks was somewhere else, and would

“not influence the traffic in Dover.”

The Government and the pharma companies say that they can guarantee supplies of medicines, and the EU Commission has proposed visa-free travel for UK citizens in the EU for up to six months of the year. The EU statement of 19 December already proposes its own transition period of up to nine months, including no disruption of central bank clearing, a new air services agreement, access to the EU for UK road haulage operators and special regulations on customs declarations.

Leaving on WTO terms is far preferable to the protracted uncertainty of either extending article 50 or this unacceptable withdrawal agreement. The leadership of this country—that includes the Government and the Opposition—should stop reinforcing weakness and start talking up our strengths and building up our confidence. History has proved that our country can always rise to the challenge, and our people will never forgive the politicians who allow the EU to inflict defeat. It saddens me greatly that even some in my own party are promoting such a defeat.

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. My apologies for interrupting, but I wonder whether you could indicate whether you are likely to introduce a time limit on speeches during the course of today’s proceedings, and tell us what it might be. That would allow us to start thinking about how to contain our speeches.

Aviation Strategy

Debate between Bernard Jenkin and Jim Fitzpatrick

Thursday 24th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

May I join others in congratulating you on your election to your new office, Madam Deputy Speaker? It is a great pleasure to be speaking in one of your debates for the first time. I also congratulate the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill), on his appointment as the Minister responsible for aviation. Welcome to the hot seat!

I commend the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman) and her Committee for tackling this important issue at a time when it is very topical. As a fellow Select Committee Chairman, I can vouch for the fact that policy inquiries such as this are the most difficult in which to engage. Certainly the evidence is the most difficult to assess. However, while I agree with the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford) that the hon. Lady has got some things right, I think that some of her Committee’s decisions were wrong.

I congratulate the hon. Lady on recognising that London will not survive as a global city unless we maintain its connectivity. Being a city is about being connected. If we want London to remain the world’s global financial centre—the premier international city—we must have international connectivity. Aviation services are the new rivers of our generation. Along with the airwaves and the internet, aviation is what connects cities nowadays, and if we cut ourselves off by persevering with a patch-and-mend aviation policy in London and the south-east, we shall see an end to London’s global status in our lifetimes.

The hon. Lady is right about “Heathwick”—it just would not work—and she is entirely right about hubs. However, she is wrong about Heathrow. As the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich pointed out, experience and the political reality tell us that there will simply not be any new runways at Heathrow. Have we not learnt from the fact that, although every member of the last Government was absolutely committed to getting that proposal through, it did not go through? That was due to the sheer scale of opposition from west London constituencies. Far more marginal constituencies would be affected by the development of Heathrow than would be affected by the choice of any other possible site for an airport. It is simply not possible to generate enough political support for development at Heathrow—one party or another will always oppose it.

Which mayoral candidate will stand, and be elected, on a pro-Heathrow policy? That will never happen. Ken Livingstone was against development at Heathrow, Boris Johnson is against it, and I guarantee that all three members of the main political parties who stand in the mayoral election will be against it. It is never going to happen.

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman is making an interesting point, to which I hope to return if I am lucky enough to be called to speak. Given that the Conservative party went into the 2010 general election as the only party that was totally opposed to the third runway at Heathrow, why did it not win that sweep of west London marginals?

[Mr Jenkin]

I can tell the hon. Gentleman that we would have won even fewer seats in London had we supported the Heathrow case. There is no doubt about that. Why does he think that my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) is so strongly opposed to a new runway at Heathrow?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for pointing out that, as we all know, the Lib Dems are not consistent in opposition and in government. He rightly says, however, that this is one issue on which they have been consistent—consistently in denial.

When we look at the international competition from Schiphol, Charles de Gaulle and Frankfurt, and from the new airports that have been built or are being built in Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Berlin and Istanbul, we see the importance of aviation and having a aviation hub. We are falling behind the times. However, when the Prime Minister indicated that the Government were appointing the Davies commission, we saw the beginning of one of the longest U-turns in recent British politics. The moving of the right hon. Members for Putney (Justine Greening) and for Chipping Barnet (Mrs Villiers) to other Departments and the appointment of the current Secretary of State for Transport clearly indicated that, after three years, Conservative Back Benchers who had been arguing the case—as did the CBI, the British Chambers of Commerce, London First, the TUC and others—had gone to the Government and said, “This issue is too important. We’ve got it wrong and we need additional capacity.”

I think that the Conservative manifesto for 2015 will have a commitment to the Davies commission’s conclusions, although I want to hear what the Minister says about that because he has history on this issue, given his support for the village opposed to the third runway at Heathrow. When the right hon. Ladies were moved and the new Ministers were brought in, that was a sign of encouragement for the aviation industry and those who support additional capacity. However, when the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill), and Baroness Kramer, the predecessor of the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith), were appointed, it was almost as if the Government were going back to where they were before the last reshuffle. I would like reassurance from the Minister about what that means.

For me, the Transport Committee’s key recommendation is No. 34. Whether we support the Heathrow plan, the estuary plan or point to point, there is general agreement that capacity is an issue, as well as about the importance of aviation to UK plc and the significance of a hub airport. The Davies commission at least gives us a chance of a fresh start and an opportunity to try to build consensus so that there is not the party political squabbling of the past 10, 20 or 30 years and the piecemeal approach to aviation that was cited by the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Sir Alan Haselhurst).

[Mr Jenkin]

Will the hon. Gentleman reflect that if Davies comes down in favour of some cobbled together compromise on Heathrow, we will go straight back into that kind of paralysing debate? If he comes down in favour of a Thames estuary airport, that will be decisive and a way forward. There will be far more consensus around a long-term solution than around a patch-and-mend, short-term one.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making the point. He said that there was no showstopper for the estuary option, but for me the showstopper is the £50 billion to £70 billion—depending on the estimate—of public sector money that it would cost. The options for Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted and elsewhere involve private sector money, which is a whole different ball game.

If the Davies commission says that Heathrow is the answer, some people will oppose that—the Lib Dems, my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and, I suspect, my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter). Some have been consistently against aviation or Heathrow, but I hope that the general consensus will be, “Davies has been given three years to do the job. We have wasted 20 years already—we can’t waste another decade.”